Rumor: Burke Mountain to announce new High Speed Quad to the top?

[marcski]

If it replaced the Willoughby Quad with a HSQ, I am all for it. I am not normally a fan of high speed lifts but many have their place. There is nothing to like about the current Willoughby Quad. The only concern is whether Burke has the trail capacity to handle more skiers and riders on the mountain. But given that Burke hardly ever has lift lines, I can't imagine it will really be an issue unless Burke suddenly is "on the map" due to being in the High Speed big leagues. That did not save Ascutney but they didn't have anything going for them unlike Burke which has everything going for it except a good summit lift.

I've never been to Burke...but as you know, we have done the math many times over in various threads through the years, Riv....if you're changing a FGQ to a HSQ you are not really adding any uphill capacity.....

 

[umby]

Must badly suck for snowboarders.

My buddy that snowboards there says that waxing his board before each day is vital due to the run out. haha

 

[WJenness]

I've never been to Burke...but as you know, we have done the math many times over in various threads through the years, Riv....if you're changing a FGQ to a HSQ you are not really adding any uphill capacity.....

But since you don't (usually) have lines at Burke, you are adding to the number of runs 1 skier can do in a given amount of time (day), which does increase the overall number of skier-runs.... so in a way, it is increasing traffic.

-w

 

[marcski]

But since you don't (usually) have lines at Burke, you are adding to the number of runs 1 skier can do in a given amount of time (day), which does increase the overall number of skier-runs.... so in a way, it is increasing traffic.

-w

Agreed. But also since HSQ's, but their nature, keep more people on the lift line and less people in chairs on the haul rope, they tend to increase the liftlines over a FGQ.

 

[WJenness]

Agreed. But also since HSQ's, but their nature, keep more people on the lift line and less people in chairs on the haul rope, they tend to increase the liftlines over a FGQ.

Agreed...

But from everything I've heard, the skier density at Burke isn't high enough to create lines with a detach either...

Disclaimer: I've never been, I'm just going with what I've read here.

-w

 

[from_the_NEK]

It's on my list as well...

Maybe we can put something together?

Mini AZ day @ Burke and we'll make From_The_NEK show us around all day?

-w

Been a while since we've had one of those...

On less than capacity days, a HSQ would result in an increase of skier traffic on the trails since there would be less people confined to the chair for 13-14 minutes per run. Cut that ride time in half and I could easily increase my number of runs in a day from 21 to 30-33 (assuming 7 hours of non-stop skiing and my quads/hamstrings don't explode). That = more tracks down the mountain by the same number of people.

BTW Ascutney's Quad ~5,020' long
Burke's Willoughby Quad ~ 4,760' long
"Proposed New Quad that starts just below the current Mid-Burke parking lot" would be ~5,600' long

Ascutney's quad could replace the Willoughby but a whole new haul rope would probably be in order to fit the length of the "New" quad which means $$$ (Unless splicing in 1200 additional feet is allowed?).

Note - Measurements made in Google Earth

 

[Masskier]

Been a while since we've had one of those...

On less than capacity days, a HSQ would result in an increase of skier traffic on the trails since there would be less people confined to the chair for 13-14 minutes per run. Cut that ride time in half and I could easily increase my number of runs in a day from 21 to 30-33 (assuming 7 hours of non-stop skiing and my quads/hamstrings don't explode). That = more tracks down the mountain by the same number of people.

BTW Ascutney's Quad ~5,020' long
Burke's Willoughby Quad ~ 4,760' long
"Proposed New Quad that starts just below the current Mid-Burke parking lot" would be ~5,600' long

Ascutney's quad could replace the Willoughby but a whole new haul rope would probably be in order to fit the length of the "New" quad which means $$$ (Unless splicing in 1200 additional feet is allowed?).

Note - Measurements made in Google Earth

My understanding is that a new HSQ, would be from the lower level of the parking lot at mid Burke. This would make the mountain a lot easier to get around, especially from the east side.

 

[Smellytele]

My understanding is that a new HSQ, would be from the lower level of the parking lot at mid Burke. This would make the mountain a lot easier to get around, especially from the east side.

That would be much better!!!

 

[x10003q]

Been a while since we've had one of those...

On less than capacity days, a HSQ would result in an increase of skier traffic on the trails since there would be less people confined to the chair for 13-14 minutes per run. Cut that ride time in half and I could easily increase my number of runs in a day from 21 to 30-33 (assuming 7 hours of non-stop skiing and my quads/hamstrings don't explode). That = more tracks down the mountain by the same number of people.

The increase in runs might be less than you think. I agree that for skiers on this board the HSQ would serve to increase the number of runs. But for the vast majority of skiers, the number of runs will stay the same. Most casual skiers do not have the desire or need to ski to the final bell. People who ski only a couple of days per year never get into "ski shape" even if they work out. Unless there are absolute primo conditions on the hill, the places I ski on weekends are usually empty after 2-3PM.
A HSQ would be a good move for Burke because it would mean more runs for you and me.

 

[Zand]

Hopefully this happens before I leave LSC... that damn quad is brutally slow. Thank god for the poma.

 

[billski]

The increase in runs might be less than you think. I agree that for skiers on this board the HSQ would serve to increase the number of runs. But for the vast majority of skiers, the number of runs will stay the same. Most casual skiers do not have the desire or need to ski to the final bell. People who ski only a couple of days per year never get into "ski shape" even if they work out. Unless there are absolute primo conditions on the hill, the places I ski on weekends are usually empty after 2-3PM.
A HSQ would be a good move for Burke because it would mean more runs for you and me.

I have no clue about Burke, but I've seen places where high speed lifts put too many people on the hill at once, causing trail congestion if they cannot spread out.

 

[The Sneak]

zand
Can you take the poma to get to the glades on that side of the hill? I hated that quad. Went there in january and every ride up it seemed to stop multiple times, usually at that point 3/4 of the way up where you are like 100 ft off the ground...and it was zero degrees or colder out.

the poma would be ideal if goes high enough to hit up the glades on that side...

 

[Zand]

I don't think there's a way over to the East Bowl glades from it, but you can traverse over to Birches from there as well as hit some unmarked stuff between trails from there.

 

[x10003q]

I have no clue about Burke, but I've seen places where high speed lifts put too many people on the hill at once, causing trail congestion if they cannot spread out.

I have seen this also, but there are a some other variables(including HSQs) that factor into the crowding. It has been mentioned that the HSQ may replace a lift with similar capacity. I think this type of crowding would not be an issue at Burke.

 

[bvibert]

I have no clue about Burke, but I've seen places where high speed lifts put too many people on the hill at once, causing trail congestion if they cannot spread out.

The speed of the lift has nothing to do with how many people are put on the mountain at once. You can only load 4 people every so often (5 seconds or so?), the same whether it's fixed grip or high speed. On the top the same applies; 4 people get off at the same interval on a HS as they do on a FG (unless the FG has really far spacing). The only difference is they spend less time on chair. Without crowds it's a win since you spend more time skiing and less riding the lift. With crowds you have the potential to spend the extra time standing in a lift line instead. Personally I'd rather sit on a slow chair then stand in a lift line. It sounds like Burke doesn't have a crowd problem (yet??) so a HS might be winner all around.

The increased uphill capacity comes when a HSQ replaces a FG triple or double. Or a six or eight pack replaces pretty much anything.

Of course the spacing of the chairs and thus the load interval can be altered by changing the number of chairs on the line to set the uphill capacity where you want. But you can only set the load interval just so fast to efficiently and safely get people on the chairs. I believe the load interval is regulated by the body governing tramway operations.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Hopefully this happens before I leave LSC...

Hopefully you are on the six year plan :razz:

that damn quad is brutally slow.

Especially if you ride the Sherburne HSQ first. It almost seems like you are sitting still when you get on the Willoughby after the Sherburne HSQ ride.

 

[Smellytele]

The speed of the lift has nothing to do with how many people are put on the mountain at once. You can only load 4 people every so often (5 seconds or so?), the same whether it's fixed grip or high speed. On the top the same applies; 4 people get off at the same interval on a HS as they do on a FG (unless the FG has really far spacing). The only difference is they spend less time on chair. Without crowds it's a win since you spend more time skiing and less riding the lift. With crowds you have the potential to spend the extra time standing in a lift line instead. Personally I'd rather sit on a slow chair then stand in a lift line. It sounds like Burke doesn't have a crowd problem (yet??) so a HS might be winner all around.

The increased uphill capacity comes when a HSQ replaces a FG triple or double. Or a six or eight pack replaces pretty much anything.

Of course the spacing of the chairs and thus the load interval can be altered by changing the number of chairs on the line to set the uphill capacity where you want. But you can only set the load interval just so fast to efficiently and safely get people on the chairs. I believe the load interval is regulated by the body governing tramway operations.

So you are saying the time spent on the lift is the same on a HSQ as it is on a FGQ. If so then you would have the same amount of uphill capacity. If the HSQ is faster then more people can get up the hill. The only way there would be the same amount is if the overall time for equal spaced chairs to travel around is the same for both.

 

[Edd]

So you are saying the time spent on the lift is the same on a HSQ as it is on a FGQ. If so then you would have the same amount of uphill capacity. If the HSQ is faster then more people can get up the hill. The only way there would be the same amount is if the overall time for equal spaced chairs to travel around is the same for both.

I think he's saying the time on the lift is less for the rider but the amount of people delivered to the hill is the same.

 

[Smellytele]

I think he's saying the time on the lift is less for the rider but the amount of people delivered to the hill is the same.

So either less chairs or same time per chair round trip and not same time ass-in-seat to skis on snow

 

[bvibert]

So you are saying the time spent on the lift is the same on a HSQ as it is on a FGQ. If so then you would have the same amount of uphill capacity. If the HSQ is faster then more people can get up the hill. The only way there would be the same amount is if the overall time for equal spaced chairs to travel around is the same for both.

No, you spend less time on a HSQ. But, given equal load intervals (assuming the FGQ was optimized for the highest capacity then you can't load people any faster onto a HSQ), you can still only send so many people up at once. The difference on the HS is that there's larger spacing on the chairs. If you took the same spacing of chairs on a FGQ and spun it as fast as a HSQ you'd never be able to get anyone on it, that's why they're detachable and go around the loading and unloading terminals much slower to pick people up and drop them off at the same interval as a fixed grip.

If you can load people every, lets just say 5 seconds, then you can only unload them every 5 seconds. Assuming there's a enough people on the hill to fill the chairs then every minute roughly 48 people will get off the chair at the top regardless of a HS or FG. They'll spend less time on the chair on a HS, and given low crowds that will mean more runs in a given amount of time. However once you add crowds to the mix (enough to create a lift line at a FGQ) then the extra time saved on the quick lift ride could be spent waiting in the lift line instead. Since there's less chairs on the line at any given time (increased spacing = less chairs) then there's less people on the lift at any time. Which means that (assuming they ski the same speed whether it's a FG or HS) if they're not on the chair or on the slope they must be waiting in line, right?

I'm sure I just did a horrible job of explaining that, but trust me the math works out given the same load interval time. If the FGQ to be replaced wasn't loading as frequently as it could (didn't have enough chairs to optimize load intervals) and a HSQ was installed that had the shortest load interval possible then yes the HSQ would put more people on the hill. It really comes down to how often you can load a set amount of people onto a chair.